ADJ-00035200
CORRECTION ORDER
ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 88 OF THE EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT 1998
This Order corrects the original Decision ADJ-00035200 issued on 20/10/2022 and should be read in conjunction with that Decision.
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00035200
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Customer Care Advisor | A Hotel Reservations Company |
Representatives | In person | Shane Crossan, Solicitor O'Flynn Exhams Solicitors |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00046337-001 | 21/09/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/10/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015,following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
This complaint is one of discrimination on grounds of gender.
Anonymization of Parties Following the issue of the original decision on the parties, the WRC received a request from the Respondent that the decision which would be published on the WRC website would not identify the parties. In light of this, the Adjudication Officer wrote to the Complainant by email asking her to indicate, within a specified time frame, if she objected to the Respondent’s request. No objection was received by the Complainant. In these circumstances the Adjudication Officer, relying on the discretion provided by section 41(14) of the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, determined that, arising from the evidence that had been given at hearing, special circumstances existed and that information which identified the parties should not be published. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave evidence under oath She worked as a customer care advisor for the Respondent between July 2018 and September 2021. At the commencement of her employment in 2018, when she was in the process of transitioning from male to female, she was asked by Respondent HR to provide her passport which indicated then that her sex was male, not female. Her former male name was on the passport. She explained to the then HR manager that she was transitioning. She expected that this information would be kept private however subsequently other staff approached her raising the issue with her and she realized that her privacy had been breached. Ultimately everyone in the work-place seemed to know about her. The Complainant had not shared this information with anyone, so she knows it must have come from HR. Conversations were broached with her that were most unwelcome. One colleague approached her and said “I hear that you are transitioning, I have nothing against that.” Or another asked her about the details of transition surgery and what was involved with that. These questions were highly intrusive. Also automated emails from the Respondent “dead-named” her (i.e. referred to her using her former male name, as had been on her passport.) This was very upsetting and hurtful. The Complainant accepts the Respondent’s preliminary point that no act of discrimination occurred in the 6 months prior to 21 September 2021 - when this complaint issued. She accepts that she was on a seven month lay-off from February 2021 until she resigned on 13 September 2021. She accepts that her complaints lay mainly in incidents which occurred at the start of her employment and while there were also later unwelcome conversations and incidents, none of these occurred in the 6 months prior to the bringing of her complaint. It was only during lockdown that she reflected on what had happened that she developed a grave disquiet about what had happened. This caused her to resign and bring this complaint. She accepts that she was promoted during her time working there but she considered this to be an attempt by HR to remedy the hurt that the disclosures had caused her. She accepts that she didn’t bring her concerns to the attention of the Respondent HR team but the reason why she did not was because HR had caused the problem in the first place, by violating her privacy and she did not trust them. She also had other difficulties at that time connected to her then asylum status. The Complainant accepts that her complaint may be out of time (she was not aware of the time limits involved) but she still wanted to bring the complaint to highlight issues that trans people encounter and to ensure that what happened to her would not happen to anyone else in the future. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Complaint is denied in full. The Complaint is statute-barred. No grievance was raised by the Complainant before she resigned. No prima facie proof of discrimination has been put forward, no details, no specific allegations, no times, no comparators. All the assertions made are generalised unproven accounts. Under oath the Respondent’s current HR manager advised that the Complainant is not their first employee who has gender-transitioned. An employee’s need for privacy and the need that the dignity and respect of all staff are protected within the Respondent’s diverse work force are fully understood by the Respondent. The Respondent cannot give evidence on behalf of previous HR staff who have since left the Respondent’s employment. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant accepted at the start of the Adjudication hearing that this complaint issued after 6 months from the last date of discrimination. On the basis that this complaint was brought outside the statutory time limit I find that the WRC has no jurisdiction to investigate this complaint. |
Decision:
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
This complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 20th October 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
Key Words:
Discrimination – gender transition – time bar |
AJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00035200
Parties:
Representatives | In person | Shane Crossan Solicitor O'Flynn Exhams Solicitors |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00046337-001 | 21/09/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/10/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015,following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
This complaint is one of discrimination on grounds of gender.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave evidence under oath She worked as a customer care advisor for the Respondent between July 2018 and September 2021. At the commencement of her employment in 2018, when she was in the process of transitioning from male to female, she was asked by Respondent HR to provide her passport which indicated then that her sex was male, not female. Her former male name was on the passport. She explained to the then HR manager that she was transitioning. She expected that this information would be kept private however subsequently other staff approached her raising the issue with her and she realized that her privacy had been breached. Ultimately everyone in the work-place seemed to know about her. The Complainant had not shared this information with anyone, so she knows it must have come from HR. Conversations were broached with her that were most unwelcome. One colleague approached her and said “I hear that you are transitioning, I have nothing against that.” Or another asked her about the details of transition surgery and what was involved with that. These questions were highly intrusive. Also automated emails from the Respondent “dead-named” her (i.e. referred to her using her former male name, as had been on her passport.) This was very upsetting and hurtful. The Complainant accepts the Respondent’s preliminary point that no act of discrimination occurred in the 6 months prior to 21 September 2021 - when this complaint issued. She accepts that she was on a seven month lay off from February 2021 until she resigned on 13 September 2021. She accepts that her complaints lay mainly in incidents which occurred at the start of her employment and while there were also later unwelcome conversations and incidents, none of these occurred in the 6 months prior to the bringing of her complaint. It was only during lockdown that she reflected on what had happened that she developed a grave disquiet about what had happened. This caused her to resign and bring this complaint. She accepts that she was promoted during her time there but she considered this to be an attempt by HR to remedy the hurt that the disclosures had caused her. She accepts that she didn’t bring her concerns to the attention of the Respondent HR team but the reason why she did not was because HR had caused the problem in the first place, by violating her privacy and she did not trust them. She also had other difficulties at that time connected to her then asylum status. The Complainant accepts that her complaint may be out of time (she was not aware of the time limits involved) but she still wanted to bring the complaint to highlight issues that trans people encounter and to ensure that what happened to her would not happen to anyone else in the future. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Complaint is time-barred. No grievance was raised by the Complainant before she resigned No prima facie proof of discrimination has been put forward, no details, no specific allegations, no times, no comparators. All the assertions made are generalised unproven accounts. Under oath the Respondent’s current HR manager advised that the Complainant is not their first employee who has gender-transitioned. An employee’s need for privacy and the need that the dignity and respect of all staff are protected within the Respondent’s diverse work force are fully understood by the Respondent. The Respondent cannot give evidence on behalf of previous HR staff who have since left the Respondent’s employment. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant accepted at the start of the Adjudication hearing that this complaint issued after 6 months from the last date of discrimination. On the basis that this complaint was brought outside the statutory time limit I find that the WRC has no jurisdiction to investigate this complaint. |
Decision:
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
This complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 20th October 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
Key Words:
Discrimination – gender transition – time bar |